Why Objectifying the Ultimate Objectifier Is More Than Wrong; It Isn’t Helping
I’ll be upfront with you. I deeply fear the possibility of a Trump presidency. I dislike, with most of my being, Trump’s revolting, hateful, unceasing troll tactics. Surprise, surprise, I’m voting for Hillary in the fall with the pleasure of a rather innocent child who discovers the emotion of “contempt” for the first time and secretly wants to see someone lose BIG.
So you might think someone of my political persuasion might have laughed at the recent naked Trump statue that was placed in the middle of New York’s Union Square Wednesday night, as well as in San Francisco, Cleveland, Los Angeles, and Seattle. You might imagine me laughing out loud at NYC Park’s clever press remarks on removing it: “NYC Parks stands firmly against any unpermitted erection in city parks, no matter how small.”
Well, you are right. I did laugh at the pictures online. Then I really thought about this and immediately felt disturbed.
This must be what perverts who laugh at revenge porn or fat-shaming feel like.
You see, if I saw an unflattering slut-shaming naked statue of Hillary Clinton, I would be utterly outraged. I would call it sexist and definitely stand up for the positive body imagery of women. Already, I have called out people I know who call Hillary Clinton a “c*nt who will rape America” and laugh at “The Bitch Fell Off” motorcycle shirts (see below). If you hate on Clinton, don’t hate her because she is a woman. If you want to diss Melania Trump, make fun of her plagiarism but not nearly nude pictures from her modeling days. By all means, dislike Michelle Obama because she wants to make school lunches healthy, but don’t troll on her muscle mass (though I openly envy her biceps).
In a similar manner, hate on Trump for his sexist, racist, and delusional policies but nobody (especially children hopped up on chocolate from Max Brenner’s at Union Square) needs to see a body-shaming naked statue with a small penis to make that point.
Look, kids walk around New York City, believe it or not, and while naked Greco-Roman bodies are all over the place in our public art, they are not there to slander or shame someone’s body. I, for one, would not want my child to walk through a park and see a naked Trump, just as much as I loathe the day if/when I have to explain revenge porn and political slut-shaming to a daughter.
I love some good protest art. Yet I think this is horrible, damaging, and unhelpful protest art. This statue represents a dangerous double-standard we, as liberals, cannot afford to project as we try to win this fall… human decency and civility reasons aside.
To liberals, body-shaming a man who is a sexist arse may be justified as political protest art that punches up — perhaps karmic? Doing the same to a woman would immediately spark outrage, Change.org petitions, and a barrage of Broadly articles. Laughing at a grotesque and very public Donald Trump statue, but being outraged by Clinton fem-shaming is exactly the kind of stuff that gives alt-right trolls political ammo. It gives them the pleasure of pointing out Democratic hypocrisy and liberal smugness. I imagine the Twitter posts already: “Oh, so showing a small Trump dick is art, but showing Hillary’s tits is punching down? #punchdown” “More liberal hypocrisy #trumpstatue” “WE WILL SHOW YOU THE EMPRESS’S NEW CLOTHES.”
Sure Trump has objectified women, shamed their periods, and talked about how hot his daughter is. There aren’t too many women I know who don’t harbor a secret desire to see him punched in the nuts for being such a sexist womanizer. All this said, is it right to objectify the objectifier in the crassest and lowest way possible: body-shaming?
No. Absolutely not.
So be on the right side of history. Take back the Internet from the haters (shout out to Joel Stein), spare some children some nightmares, and don’t add to someone’s “size” anxiety out there.
Punch politics, not bodies.